Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

[NYer]

Has anyone noticed the almost complete disappearance of Protestants from our nation? "What!" I can hear my readers exclaim, "Storck has really gone off his rocker this time. Why, just down the street there's an Assembly of God church and two or three Baptist churches and the Methodists and so on. My cousin just left the Catholic Church to become a Protestant and my niece just married one. Moreover, evangelical Protestants have many media outlets of their own and they have great influence in the Bush Administration. They're everywhere." All this, of course, is true. Except that for some time, they no longer call themselves Protestants, but simply Christians, and increasingly they've gotten Catholics to go along with their terminology.

I recall over 10 years ago when I was a lector at Mass, for the prayer of the faithful I was supposed to read a petition that began, "That Catholics and Christians…." Of course, I inserted the word "other" before "Christians," but I doubt very many in the congregation would even have noticed had I not done so. Just the other day I saw on a Catholic website an article about a Protestant adoption agency that refused to place children with Catholic parents. The headline referred not to a Protestant adoption agency but to a Christian one. And how often do we hear of Christian bookstores or Christian radio stations or Christian schools, when everyone should know they are Protestant ones?

Now, what is wrong with this? Well, it should be obvious to any Catholic -- but probably isn't. Are only Protestants Christians? Are we Catholics not Christians, indeed the true Christians? About 30 years ago, Protestants, especially evangelicals, began to drop the term Protestant and call themselves simply Christians as a not too subtle means of suggesting that they are the true and real Christians, rather than simply the children of the breakaway Protestant revolt of the 16th century. This shift in Protestant self-identification has taken on increasingly dramatic proportions. A recent Newsweek survey (Aug. 29-Sept. 5, 2005) found that, between 1990 and 2001, the number of Americans who consider themselves "Christian" (no denomination) increased by 1,120 percent, while the number of those who self-identify as "Protestant" decreased by 270 percent.

But perhaps I am getting too worked up over a small matter. After all, are not Protestants also Christians? Yes, I do not deny that. But usually we call something by its most specific name.

Protestants are theists too, but it would surely sound odd if we were to refer to their radio stations and bookstores as theistic radio stations and theistic bookstores. Language, in order to be useful, must convey human thought and concepts in as exact a way as it can. And, in turn, our thoughts and concepts should reflect reality. As Josef Pieper noted, "if the word becomes corrupted, human existence will not remain unaffected and untainted."

Moreover, words often convey more than simple concepts. A certain word may seem only to portray reality, but in fact it does more. It adds a certain overtone and connotation. Thus, it is not a small matter whether we speak of "gays" or of homosexuals. The former term was chosen specifically to inculcate acceptance of an unnatural and immoral way of life. When I was an Episcopalian, I was careful never to speak of the Catholic Church, but of the Roman Catholic Church, as a means of limiting the universality of her claims. I always called Episcopal ministers priests, again as a means of affirming that such men really were priests, in opposition to Leo XIII's definitive judgment that Anglican orders are invalid and thus that they are in no sense priests. Perhaps because of these early experiences, I am very aware of the uses of language to prejudge and control arguments, and I am equally careful now never to call Episcopal ministers priests or refer to one as Father So-and-So. And I think we should likewise not go along with the evangelical Protestant attempt to usurp the name Christian for themselves. They are Protestants, and public discourse should not be allowed to obscure that fact.

Apparently, though, it is the case that some Protestants call themselves Christians, not out of a desire to usurp the term, but out of an immense ignorance of history. That is, they ignore history to such an extent that they really don't understand that they are Protestants. Knowing or caring little about what came before them, they act as if their nicely bound Bibles had fallen directly from Heaven and anyone could simply become a Christian with no reference to past history, ecclesiology, or theology. The period of time between the conclusion of the New Testament book of Acts and the moment that they themselves "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior" means nothing. Even Luther or Calvin or John Wesley mean little to them, since they can pick up their Bibles and start Christianity over again any time they want. These souls may call themselves simply Christians in good faith, but they are largely ignorant of everything about Church history. They do not understand that Jesus Christ founded a Church, and that He wishes His followers to join themselves to that Church at the same time as they join themselves to Him. In fact, one implies and involves the other, since in Baptism we are incorporated in Christ and made members of His Church at the same time.

So let us not go along with the widespread practice of calling our separated brethren simply Christians. They are Protestants. Let us begin again to use that term. It is precise. It implies Catholic doctrine in the sense that it suggests that such people are in protest against the Church. Moreover, it forces them to define themselves in terms of, rather than independently of, the One True Church. And if we do resume referring to our separated brethren as Protestants, perhaps a few of them might even be surprised enough to ask us why -- and then, behold, a teachable moment!

[gscc]

Matthew 7:13-14

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

[Pyro7480]

We'll know soon enough.

[conservonator]

Less than a quarter of the worlds population is "Christian", leaving 3/4 of the earth, not to mention fallen away Christians, ready for the wide gate. That would be the many.

[Cronos]

Well, you are not quite as well informed as you might think . I believe that you would be very hard pressed to find any Baptists who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary

Oh, I'll agree on the first statement -- as I've said before, the umbrella term Protestant includes too many contradictory views even on basic dogma. As in your point, you've brought out that even the Baptists, a sub-denomination within the Protestant umbrella group has quite divergent points of view on dogma on it's own.

As to the juxtaposing of the "sects" and Islam, well , I would suggest you all have more to squirm about than do those who simply call themselves Christian. Consider the fact that Islam holds to be true your belief in the immaculate conception.

No, not really -- you don't believe in the immaculate conception? Then you would not be a Trinitarian (belief that Christ and God are one and the same)

Furthermore, Isllam is IMHO a heresy, a break-away from the teachings of The Church, a corruption of faith.

[Cronos]

To make a snide comment about how the reader does not understand the terminology used in the Middle East is rather lame. If this is a prerequisite, then the whole Bible- thing is out since it is kind of based there and the terminology of THE ENTIRE THING would be , in your view, unintelligible

it's not a snide comment -- it's a simple statement that if you base your understanding purely on the human words in the Bible, without understanding the context, you will be wrong. I'll give you a simple example from my own life -- when I was 12 there was this friend of mine who thought the Nazis were right to ask for German land back in WWII. I didn't know so I read about it -- initially it seemed that perhaps they were right: perhaps the treaty of Versailles was unfair. but then you read back and find that the Germans had conquered Slavic lands in the 19th century. Then you read back further to the Teutonic knights and the Slavic and Germanics invasions of Europe in the Middle Ages. In short, things are never as simple as they seem even in a human matter like history. And to understand God, our solitary human individuality cannot work -- that's why God left us a Church, a community of believers to talk and learn TOGETHER.

[Cronos]

I will gladly match the authority and and wisdom of my God who inspired the scriptures and instructed me to study them against every Catholic scholar you can name for the past two thousand years.

Tenn seems to deny Augustine and all the early Church fathers -- he may probably deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.

[tenn2005]

Only your "church fathers, not the trinity or divinity of Jesus

[Cronos]

All I pointed out was that the customs and culture dictates the language -- the very term brothers and sisters includes cousins in the Middle East -- even unto today. These terms aren't used in the West in the same way, hence the confusion. As in the discussion I'm having with my Eastern brethern, you can see that there have been faults because of language -- human faults. The Spanish priests put in the Filioque to make things clearer when they were battling heresy. While it meant what the GReeks and Latins knew, yet, when translated, it seemed irrevocable heresy to the Greeks (and rightly so). Ditto with customs and perspective on the 4th Crusade. The West thinks of it one way, the East in another. Culture and language can keep us apart -- we ARE mere mortals after all and fallible in our ways. Similarly I point out that the Word of God is infallible, but OUR petty human interpretation is fallible, even when inspired by the Holy Spirit, it would be difficult for us to contemplate the magnanimity that is God -- like getting a 3 month old to understand the string theory in physics. Actually, it would be worse than that.

[tenn2005]

Your biggest problem is that you don't understand what the New Testament Church is. All you know is what your "Clergy" tell you.

[Cronos]

Tenn --> we're not pointing you out as stupid -- we all are, individually, too stupid to comprehend God. That's why we have a community of believers -- The Church, with generations of people inspired by the Spirit. I don't know if you are or aren't inspired -- that's not for me to judge. But I do know that many Spirit inspired people have been in The Church. When we in the Apostolic Church quote Church fathers we don't point out just one as infallible -- take Augustine, he had some wrong points too, but taken in context with all the other Church Fathers, The Church's teachings become so. Take Origen -- some of his musings led to heresy by his future readers, but he is still considered a Church father, because all he did was question and ask and ponder on the nature of God. The Church encourages that, but not to take people down a wrong path -- that's what Arius did and hence he is condemned as a heretic.

[Cronos]

As soon as he would have tried to teach, he'd become a preacher, and thus a source of error. It's an enigma. Apparently you can be lead infallibly and personally to all truth by the Holy Spirit, but as soon as you start talking about it, you're wrong.

That is gnosticism -- the idea that salvation is through gnosis -- secret, isoteric knowledge that one does not share. It is not Christian thought. Tenn -- we ALL need to learn more of our faith, so join us in learning more -- read www.newadvent.com, read other books on the faith and teachings. You have the free will to decide.

[tenn2005]

You rely too much on the "church fathers." By your own admission they are not infallable. That being the case, how do you know which of their "supposedly inspired" statements are correct and which are incorrect. I am definitely not inspired, so I look to the teachings of the Bible which "is proven to be inspired." You have impelled yourself on your own pickard.

[jo kus]

Don't hold your breath - there is no scriptural basis for much of this mythology.{the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist}

Sure there is. Go to John 6 and read from verse 45-60. Seems pretty clear what Jesus is saying, despite what you claim.

As pagan custom crept into the Roman Church, beginning during the Constantine era, the ritual of transubstantiation crept in.

What a crock. Show me the difference between the "true" Church, as you claim, vs. the Church of Constantine. This is a figment of your imagination. It is clear that the Church has ALWAYS considered that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Perhaps you should read the Church Fathers more and find out what they believed...

Your quotes of the Church Fathers are terrible and show that you don't have a clue what they wrote. You take one sentence out of context, but it is clear what they believed.

Justin Martyr (110-165 AD)

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, cap. lxx

Big deal. Of course we REMEMBER that the Eucharist is a commemoration of Christ's death. We don't deny that! We consider that the Eucharist is Christ's flesh in the appearance of bread - and we remember what He did for us. This proves nothing. Justin DOES write some clear thoughts about the subject here...

And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. JUSTIN MARTYR: THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN, Chapter 66.

Tatian (110-172 AD)

"...It is not we who eat human flesh - they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis." Tatian, Address to the Greeks, cap. xxv

We don't eat Christ's human flesh! We eat His glorified Body, in a sacramental form. It is under the appearance of bread and wine. This is precisely what Tatian is saying. We don't gnaw on Jesus' corporal flesh, but His sacramental flesh. If you read the context of both Tatian and Theophilus, you will see that they are defending the Christian practice of the Eucharist by saying that we don't eat the flesh of infants and cook up literal human flesh - obviously a misunderstanding of the Eucharist.

And finally, Eusebius. Of course, the Eucharist is a symbol. But that is not all it is. The Eucharis is a symbol AND a reality of the risen Christ in the form of bread and wine. It symbolizes Christ's total giving of Himself for our sake. And we take Him into ourselves as a gift; He abides in us.

It is clear from the Christians of the first few centuries (before Constantine) that they believed that somehow, Christ was actually present in the Eucharist. This cannot be denyed by the overwhelming and unanimous writings of men who were taught by the very same Apostles who wrote Scriptures.

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink, I desire His Blood, which is Love incorruptible. St Ignatius to the Philadelphians, 7, 3

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Chrsit which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God...They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." St Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, 6,2.

"But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word...How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished by the Body of the Lord and by His Blood gives way to corruption and does not partake in Life? Let them either change their opinion, or else stop offering these things mentioned...For we offer to Him those things which are His, declaring in a fit manner the gift and the acceptance of flesh and spirit. For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, considting of two elements, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but have the hope of resurrection into eternity. St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 18, 4

And so forth. There is NO Church Father who DENIES the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. It is unanimous. All that is necessary for you is to read the Church Fathers, rather than little clippets taken out of context, not understanding how we view the Eucharist. Of course it is not dripping, bloody flesh! It is Christ under the appearance of bread, just as God came to Moses under the appearance of a burning bush. Do you deny that God can come to man as bread to be his spiritual food?

Regards

[Cronos]

Bainbridge -- I merely point out that the fashion of taking random verses from the Bible and quoting them out of context leads to fallacy -- take Paul saying that Wives should submit to their husbands. Even a non-feminist would bristle at that if JUST THAT WAS QUOTED. but the verse goes on to say that husbands should love their wives like their own bodies. It implies a partnership if read IN WHOLE and IN CONTEXT. Ditto with Semitic culture and language -- taking snapshots leads to fallacies -- the commonest one being what I pointed out about Christ's brothers and sisters. Islam falls into the same problem -- Mohammed seems to have mixed up Revelations with the Gospels when he talks about Christ's birth -- Mohammed thought that Christ was born in a desert far away from everyone. See -- we mortals make mistakes. That's ok, we are mortals after all, but leading people to follow our mistakes is really bad.

[tenn2005]

If I want to learn more of my faith, why should I go to a Catholic web site. Wouldn't the Bible be a much better source. You don't seem to understand that while my congregation has a preacher, he encourages us to go home and test anything he has said against the Bible. When he is in error, and admits that he sometimes probably is, we have the duty to test anything he says against the Bible. That is exactly what I do and what I tell my students to do when I am lecturing. It would be a good practice for you to adopt also.

[PleaseNoMore]

Too many Protestants make the mistake of thinking that Christianity was born in a vaccuum, as if early Christianity only exists on the pages of the New Testament.

I am not one of those Protestants, I assure you.

The early Church and all its members were real people. It's living, breathing history, and it has existed continuously since the time of Christ.

I believe that but not that it has existed exclusively in the Roman Catholic church as we know it.

Christ didn't turn water into wine on page 764 of your Bible or in Matthew "Chapter x, verse so-and-so". He did it in Cana, at a wedding, with His friends and family in attendance, in the year 30 or so

Please, there really is no need to be so condescending. For a Protestant, I comprehend more than you would think given your preconceived stereotypical ideas about Protestants. You'd be surprised to know I do agree with quite a few of the catholic church's causes.

The Apostles did. And they passed on their knowledge to their followers, and so on and so forth.

John was writing his eyewitness account of Jesus some thirty years later than the other three accounts, possibly around 95AD. There had been time for growth, reflection and observation. Had the Holy Spirit inspired John to record more acts, he would've, I am sure. Instead he writes "Truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah) the Son of God, and that believing you may have (eternal) life in His name" (John 20:31). IOW, what is recorded is sufficient.

Please point me to a reliable source of the extrabiblical acts of Christ.

[Cronos]

Both the Orthodox and Catholic Churchs now acknowledge that the mixup with Orientals was over language (with a good deal of politics mixed up, ah, human failings). The ones we call "Monophysites" reject that terminology and consider Christ to be wholly human and wholly divine -- just as we do. In a precursor to the Schism, language again divided us (as it did earlier with the Assyrian Church whom we call Nestorian but who aren't actually guilty of his mistakes) with a dash of politics.

Most of the Oriental Churchs are in communion with either or both the Eastern and Western Churchs.

[Cronos]

The official stance of all the orthodox churches is that there are no sacrements with grace outside the Orthodox church, and that there is no alternative path to salvation through different heterodox 'branches'.

ok, I didnt' know that. Well, I hope we move closer to that ecumenical council -- it sure seems that we are inching that way.

[Cronos]

Mark -- you are right, most people hate what they THINK the Catholic Church is all about. I see this in Bainbridge and tenn -- both are condemning the Church for what they THINK it is, when it really isn't.

Tenn, Bainbridge: perhaps a little more investigation from your part (hey, no harm in going to a Catholic site and seeing what WE think -- www.newadvent.com) might help out.

[Cronos]

Let's not muck things up between us with such harsh language and cheap-shot attacks. Believe it or not, there ARE comparable things that Catholics could bring up. I know for a fact that I and several others here try to act with respect and restraint here on the Catholic side, and nearly everyone on the Orthodox side of the ledger seems to be equally respectful and disinclined to use invective. Couldn't you do the same?

Actually, I don't think x5452 or STD were part of the large EO-RC flames that took place in 2003! But those were good -- we learnt a lot about each other and I think we have come closer. What really set us thinking were Beslan and the death of JPII --> we both realised how much we have in common and how much the errors of the past centuries are being resolved, slowly but surely. We aren't one yet, but we are moving towards understanding. I think invective and drudging up the past don't help our understanding of each other.

I, as a Catholic can now understand the EO position on the Filioque and on Papal infallibility and can agree (on a personal level) to their point that these MUST be put aside to be discussed during a ecumenical council. I agree that all decisions made by either side AFTER the 7 councils must be deliberated by the united Church.